It is also discussed here:Question
5: Isn’t human use of animals a “tradition,” or “natural,” and
therefore morally justified?Answer: Every form of discrimination in the
history of humankind has been defended as “traditional.” Sexism is
routinely justified on the ground that it is traditional for women to be
subservient to men: “A woman’s place is in the home.” Human slavery has
been a tradition in most cultures at some times. The fact that some
behavior can be described as traditional has nothing to do with whether
the behavior is or is not morally acceptable.

In
addition to relying on tradition, some characterize our use of animals
as “natural” and then declare it to be morally acceptable. Again, to
describe something as natural does not in itself say anything about the
morality of the practice. In the first place, just about every form of
discrimination ever practiced has been described as natural as well as
traditional. The two notions are often used interchangeably. We have
justified human slavery as representing a natural hierarchy of slave
owners and slaves. We have justified sexism as representing the natural
superiority of men over women. Moreover, it is a bit strange to describe
our modern commodification of animals as natural in any sense of the
word. We have created completely unnatural environments and agricultural
procedures in order to maximize profits. We do bizarre experiments in
which we transplant genes and organs from animals into humans and vice
versa. We are now cloning animals. None of this can be described as
natural. Labels such as “natural” and “traditional” are just that:
labels. They are not reasons. If people defend the imposition of pain
and suffering on an animal based on what is natural or traditional, it
usually means that they cannot otherwise justify their conduct.Quote: www.abolitionistapproach.com/faqs/

----There is no doubt that we can live a very healhty life on a vegan diet:“It
is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately
planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets,
are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits
in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned
vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of
the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and
adolescence, and for athletes.” — Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
(formerly the American Dietetic Association)

Thus, eating animal foods is inflicting unnecessary harm and death upon animals, and this we all agree is morally wrong.---------------------More arguments:Quote from www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/ :

This “But” is like saying
that God wants us to eat animals but we don’t need to bother with God. Something else that is big and
important—nature—wants us to eat animals. If we don’t eat animals,we are acting against
nature. We are behaving in

an unnatural way. That’s powerful stuff—even ifyou’re an atheist. In fact, “But Natural” is
like “ButGod” without God. It seeks
to establish necessity,but without God.But why do we think that nature intends,whatever that means, that
we eat animals? Theusual response is to say that we are physicallyadapted to eat meat and other animal
products.

Putting aside that many
people are lactose intolerant, and that many physicians are pointing out that
animal products are detrimental to human health, the most we can
say is that we can eat animal products; there is nothing about
our bodies that suggests that our bodies are designed to do so. Humans compare
physically much more to herbivores than to carnivores. Carnivores have well-developed
claws. We don’t have claws. We also lack the sharp front teeth carnivorous
animals need. Although we still have canine teeth, they are not sharp and
cannot be used in the way carnivorous animals use their sharp canine teeth. We
have flat molar teeth, as seen in herbivores, such as sheep, that we use for
grinding. Carnivores have a short intestinal tract so that they can quickly
expel decaying meat. Herbivores have a much longer intestinal tract as do
humans. Herbivores and humans have weak stomach acid relative to carnivores who
have strong hydrochloric acid in their stomachs to digest meat. Herbivorous
animals have well-developed salivary glands for pre-digesting fruits and grains
and have alkaline saliva that is needed to predigest grains, as do humans.
Carnivorous animals do not have similar salivary glands and have acid saliva.

(..) And, as we stated earlier, the evidence is quite clear that we don’t need
animal products to be optimally healthy. You would think that if we were intended
to eat animal products, those of us who don’t (and haven’t for decades) would
suffer deleterious health effects. But we don’t. We do just fine. We have to
make sure we get vitamin B-12, which humans do not manufacture, or at least not
in reliable quantities. But all humans have to get B-12 from somewhere.
Carnivores get it from meat; vegans get it from nutritional yeast, other
fortified food, or supplements. But all B-12 comes from microorganisms. (..)

So while there is
considerable evidence that animal foods are detrimental to human health, we don’t
want to get into a battle of studies here to convince you that it’s healthier
not to eat animal products. We do, however, want to make clear that the very
best a consumer of animal products can say is that her diet is no better than
that of someone who eats a balanced diet of non-animal foods.

In sum, there is no
evidence that nature requires that we eat animal products. Indeed, the extant evidence
is to the contrary." End of quote.

About me

"“Thanksgiving dinner's sad and thankless. Christmas dinner's dark and blue. When you stop and try to see it From the turkey's point of view.
Sunday dinner isn't sunny. Easter feasts are just bad luck. When you see it from the viewpoint of a chicken or a duck.
Oh how I once loved tuna salad Pork and lobsters, lamb chops too Till I stopped and looked at dinner From the dinner's point of view.”
Shel Silverstein
"Animals do not 'give' their life to us, as the sugar-coated lie would have it . . . They struggle and fight to the last breath, just as we would do if we were in their place." [John Robbins]